I went to the website that he is archived on, and clicked on the first article. After a few brief moments, I ran across the "Bush=Chamberlain" comparison. Call me a simple-minded dolt (my teenagers refer to me as Daddysaurus Rex), but I intuitively knew that the writer was not a BushBot.
Which leads me to fond memories of my college days, and one in particular. It was my junior year, and thanks to the core curriculum 'imposed' by those nasty Jesuits, I was forced to take 18 hours of theology and philosophy. As it turned out, those were among the most important of the 140+ hours that I took at Gonzaga.
In this particular philosophy class, there were 14 students, of which all but two were studying for the priesthood. I felt entirely out of my element, especially after our first assignment, a two-page typed analysis of Wittgenstein's Blue and Black Books. My brain was black and blue after finishing the book report.
To my utter shock, I earned an A- on that report, even my analysis was 180 degrees from that offered by the rest of the class.
When I approached the teacher (Fr. Gerry Kohls, SJ), he said, "in philosophy, it's not what you say, it's how you say it. Besides, philosophy is nothing but a bunch of bull$hit, anyway."
Needless to say, I thoroughly enjoyed the rest of that class. Thanks, Gerry. Rest in peace.
Wittgenstein's Blue and Brown Books.
To my utter shock, I earned an A- on that report, even though my analysis was 180 degrees from that offered by the rest of the class.
--------------------------
I am a logical positivist as in the Bergmann position in the Vienna Circle.